20021120 Westminster Downtown Parking Report
CITY OF WESTMINSTER , MARYLAND
Report and Recommendations
November 20, 2002
Advisory Task Force Committee
On
Downtown
City of
I. Introduction:
At its meeting of March 11, 2002, The Mayor and Common Council of Westminster unanimously established the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. Thereafter, on June 4, 2002, Councilman Gregory Pecoraro convened the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee. The committee consisted of downtown business and property owners which were charged with reviewing the City’s parking structure and making preliminary recommendations to The Mayor and Common Council. The area under review by the Downtown Parking Advisory Committee is highlighted in Attachment 1. The following persons were appointed to the Committee.
Downtown Parking Advisory Task Force Committee:
Greg Pecoraro | David Max |
Audrey Cimino | Craig Scott |
Tom Ferguson | Lynn Aaron |
Tom Beyard | Edward Gottleib |
Stan Ruchlewicz | Kevin Bell |
Maj. Dean Brewer | Mark Pohlhaus |
II. Background Information:
The Committee was charged with finding creative ways to increase the parking revenue stream with the development of a five to ten year plan covering parking management, parking rates, access and related issues. At its first meeting, Councilman Pecoraro outlined the work to be undertaken by the parking committee. The first task the Parking Committee requested of staff was to establish a current parking inventory as well as to conduct a survey of the businesses within the study area inquiring about the number of employees and usage of public and private parking areas. A sample questionnaire is enclosed as Attachment 2. Table 1 provides a summary of the current parking inventory in Downtown Westminster. It shows a total of 3,727 public and private parking spaces within the study area. Of those, 1,906 are public parking spaces comprised permits, meter and free parking. The remaining parking spaces are privately controlled parking spaces. Table 2 provides a summary of the survey that was conducted, which utilized face-to-face interviews of the businesses that chose to participate in the survey. The response rate for the survey was 85% of all businesses within the study area.
Table 1Downtown Parking Inventory | |||||
Total Parking Capacity | Number | ||||
Free Spaces | 2551 | ||||
Meters | 524 | ||||
Handicapped Spaces | 88 | ||||
Permit Spaces | 529 | ||||
Service Parking | 35 | ||||
Total* | 3727 | ||||
* Calculated by adding Total Public Spaces – 1,906 and Total Private Spaces – 1,821. Does not include the addition of the Longwell Parking Garage or Westminster Square Garage | |||||
Table 2 | |||
Downtown Parking Survey Summary Tables | |||
Type of Business | Number of Employees | # Off Street Spaces | |
FT | PT | ||
Non Professional Service | 134 | 64 | 139 |
Professional Service | 339 | 125 | 336 |
Restaurant | 71 | 39 | 60 |
Retail | 33 | 32 | 32 |
Other | 284 | 110 | 149 |
Total | 861 | 370 | 716* |
Total Employees | 1,231 | ||
* Number of spaces provided for employee and patron use. | |||
Table 2 (cont.) | |||
Type of Business | # Permits Employer Purchase | # Permits Employees Purchase | Meter Subsidies |
Non Professional Service | 27 | 3 | 4 |
Professional Service | 31 | 30 | 5 |
Restaurant | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Retail | 15 | 0 | 0 |
Other | 31 | 79 | 1 |
Total | 104 | 113 | 10 |
III. Committee Recommendations:
Based upon these results, the Committee directed staff to develop a parking strategy for the overall study area. This included defining “Guiding Principles” which would establish benchmarks for the Committee to consider while making its pricing recommendations. Those principles are as follows:
A. Parking Committee 2002
Guiding Principles
1. Preserve the City’s parking memo fund as a self-sustaining fund within the City’s general fund.
2. Establish charges for permit, payment on foot and metered parking that, over time, will provide sufficient revenue to cover the cost of: a) construction, operation and maintenance of parking spaces; and b) construction of additional parking spaces in the future.
3. Establish consistent fines for parking violations that, over time, will provide sufficient revenue to cover the personnel, operating and capital cost of parking enforcement.
4. Implement a progressive enforcement system that may include a warning for a first time offense and an increasing fine structure for repeat and habitual offenders.
5. Establish charges for permit, payment on foot and metered parking that direct and encourage customers and short-term parkers to use the most desirable and convenient spaces closest to the commercial core and encourage employees and long-term parkers to use permit spaces.
6. Establish charges for permit, payment on foot and metered parking that recognize that some City parking facilities are more desirable and convenient than others and should be priced differently to encourage their use and discourage their misuse.
7. Provide a variety of parking choices for customers, employees and others that take into consideration location, pricing and the differing needs of short-term and long-term users.
8. Provide a variety of parking payment choices for customers, employees and others that may include cash, credit and debit cards, pre-paid parking cards and related methods.
9. Provide clear and concise signing to direct users to City parking facilities.
10. Implement improved parking enforcement by utilizing better equipment and tactics, with the consideration of adding more enforcement personnel as needed.
11. Assure the maximum safety for the users of City parking facilities.
12. Recognize with the construction and increased capacity created by the construction of the Longwell and Westminster Square Parking Garages that some City surface parking facilities that are less convenient or in key geographic locations may have higher and better uses as development sites and could be redeveloped in the future to generate additional commercial space and tax base.
Additionally, the Committee determined a new pricing structure for meters, permits, pay on foot and violations. The Committee also recognized the need to upgrade the parking meters in
B. Rate Structure – Permits
Permitted Parking Lots FY 03-04 to FY 07-08*
Longwell Annex (formerly Key St. Lot) @$0.00/month |
Lower Conaway Lot @$25/month |
Upper Conaway Lot @$20/month |
Chapel |
North Longwell Lot @$25/month |
Bauerlein @$20/month |
*Assumes the Conaway Lot will be redeveloped in FY 06-07
Permitted Parking Lots FY 08-09 to FY 12-13
Longwell Annex (formerly Key St. Lot) @$10/month |
Chapel |
North Longwell Lot @$35/month |
Bauerlein @$30/month |
Permitted Parking Lots FY 13-14 to FY 17-18
Longwell Annex (formerly Key St. Lot) @$20/month |
Chapel |
North Longwell Lot @$45/month |
Bauerlein @$40/month |
Permitted Parking Lots FY 18-19 to FY 22-23
Longwell Annex (formerly Key St. Lot) @$30/month |
Chapel |
North Longwell Lot @$55/month |
Bauerlein @$50/month |
C. Rate Structure – Pay on Foot
Pay on Foot Rates FY 03-04 to FY 07-08 |
Longwell Parking Garage @$30/month |
Westminster Square Parking Garage @$30/month |
Pay on Foot Rates FY 08-09 to FY 12-13 |
Longwell Parking Garage @$40/month |
Westminster Square Parking Garage @$40/month |
Pay on Foot Rates 13-14 to FY 17-18 |
Longwell Parking Garage @$50/month |
Westminster Square Parking Garage @$50/month |
Pay on Foot Rates FY 18-19 to FY 22-23 |
Longwell Parking Garage @$60/month |
Westminster Square Parking Garage @$60/month |
D. Rate Structure – Violations
Violations FY 03-04 to FY 07-08* |
Meters @$15/violation |
Permit Violations @$15/violation |
Other Summons @$30/violation |
Violations FY 08-09 to FY 12-13* |
Meters @$20/violation |
Permit Violations @$20/violation |
Other Summons @$35violation |
Violations FY 13-14 to FY 17-18* |
Meters @$25/violation |
Permit Violations @$25/violation |
Other Summons @$40violation |
Violations FY 18-19 to FY 22-23* |
Meters @$30/violation |
Permit Violations @$30/violation |
Other Summons @$45violation |
* Assumes a uniform violation structure for meter violations. Committee recommended that the City employ a progressive violation fine structure dependent upon the number of violations received within a given time frame. (i.e. first violation – warning, second violation - $15 fine, etc…)
E. Rate Structure – Meters
Meter Rates FY 03-04 to FY 07-08 |
Location |
Sherwood Lot - 95 meters @ $.50/hour |
Albion |
Chapel |
Sentinel |
Gehr Lot - 21 meters @$.50/hour |
Diffendal Lot - 21 meters @$.50/hour |
Court Place - 4 meters @ $.50/hour |
Bond Street - 6 meters @ $.50/hour |
Anchor Street - 10 meters @$.50/hour |
Meter Rates FY 08-09 to FY 12-13Location |
Sherwood Lot - 95 meters @ $.75/hour |
Albion |
Chapel |
Sentinel |
Gehr Lot - 21 meters @$.75/hour |
Diffendal Lot - 21 meters @$.75/hour |
Court Place - 4 meters @ $.75/hour |
Bond Street - 6 meters @ $.75/hour |
Anchor Street - 10 meters @$.75/hour |
Meter Rates FY 13-14 to FY 17-18Location |
Sherwood Lot - 95 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Albion |
Chapel |
Sentinel |
Gehr Lot - 21 meters @$1.00/hour |
Diffendal Lot - 21 meters @$1.00/hour |
Court Place - 4 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Bond Street - 6 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Anchor Street - 10 meters @$1.00/hour |
Meter Rates FY 18-19 to FY 22-23Location |
Sherwood Lot - 95 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Albion |
Chapel |
Sentinel |
Gehr Lot - 21 meters @$1.00/hour |
Diffendal Lot - 21 meters @$1.00/hour |
Court Place - 4 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Bond Street - 6 meters @ $1.00/hour |
Anchor Street - 10 meters @$1.00/hour |
The Committee recommends that the City replace all meters in FY 03-04. At that time, the Committee recommends that the hours of meter enforcement be extended by three hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The current hours of enforcement are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The recommended meters to install are digital and will be able to accept multiple forms of payment. The Committee also recommended that the City utilize a seven (7) year lease/purchase option which would minimize the initial capital cost. City staff is currently seeking lease/purchase proposals from local lending institutions. As information becomes available with respect to meter usage, the Committee recommends that the City annually review its meter rate structure.
The development of the above pricing structure achieves the goals of principles five, six and seven in the Guiding Principles. This pricing structure recognizes that some spaces are more desirable than others and they are priced to encourage employees and long-term parkers to park in the less convenient locations for a reduced cost. This pricing structure is also sensitive to the various types of customers that use parking in the downtown area and financial incentives have been built in to recognize the variety of choices that are necessary to accommodate all of
Attachment 3 is a detailed cost/revenue analysis of the parking memo fund if the City were to implement these recommendations beginning in FY03-04. This analysis assumes that the Parking Memo Fund will start with a zero balance in FY 03-04 and some assumptions had to be made with respect to costs. Specifically, the cost of the meter replacement program is not based on a bid package; rather, it is based on estimates provided by vendors of this equipment.
These estimates have an assumed usage rate. For instance, it is assumed within this detailed cost/revenue analysis that 50% of the parking spaces within the Longwell Parking Garage will generate $30/month during the first five fiscal years. Similar adjustments have been made to all surface parking lots and meters as well. Revenue projections for City meters are based on nine hours of customers paying for metered parking.
As indicated in Attachment 3, the parking pricing structure has been established to cover all costs associated with parking as well as provide for additional revenues in the future so that additional parking structures can be constructed. If adopted as recommended by the Committee, the Parking Memo Fund will become self sufficient in FY 08-09. However, this fund will carry a negative balance forward until FY 10-11 as forwarded to The Mayor and Common Council for its consideration. Incidentally, at the end of the twenty (20) year cycle which is covered by this analysis, enough revenue would be generated to substantially cover the cost of constructing a new parking structure.
F. Increased Signage
The Committee also recommends that the City initiate an aggressive signage campaign to direct parking users to the designated parking facilities. In response to that, the Committee has recommended that the City budget $10,000 to cover the cost of placing signs in strategic locations to direct traffic to the City’s parking facilities.G. EnforcementThe Committee recognizes that enforcement is critical to ensure that the City’s parking facilities achieve maximum efficiency in usage. Therefore, in conjunction with the meter replacement program, the Committee recommends that the City purchase new enforcement software which would allow the City to design a progressive violation enforcement system which more severely penalizes repeat and habitual offenders of the parking facilities. This system would also be a more efficient system, as issuing violations would be less labor intensive than it is currently.
F. Enforcement
The Committee recognizes that enforcement is critical to ensure that the City’s parking facilities achieve maximum efficiency in usage. Therefore, in conjunction with the meter replacement program, the Committee recommends that the City purchase new enforcement software which would allow the City to design a progressive violation enforcement system which more severely penalizes repeat and habitual offenders of the parking facilities. This system would also be a more efficient system, as issuing violations would be less labor intensive than it is currently.
H. Future Capacity
The Committee recommends that the City consider providing additional parking structures in the downtown area as the Downtown area continues to grow in the future. Based upon the proposed pricing structure, it is anticipated that the City would generate enough revenue to construct another parking garage in the future similar to the Longwell Parking Garage.
IV. Summary
The Committee proudly submits these recommendations to The Mayor and Common Council for its consideration. The Committee feels that these recommendations will achieve the goals adopted by the Committee as their Guiding Principles.
